{ "id": 8155943, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. SHANNON DENISE HAISLIP", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Haislip", "decision_date": "2007-10-02", "docket_number": "No. COA06-1488", "first_page": "275", "last_page": "281", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "186 N.C. App. 275" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.", "id": 14983, "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "617 S.E.2d 1", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12633690 ], "year": 2005, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/617/0001-01" ] }, { "cite": "592 S.E.2d 543", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 2004, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "358 N.C. 63", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2987590 ], "year": 2004, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/358/0063-01" ] }, { "cite": "62 L. Ed. 2d 143", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 1979, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "444 U.S. 907", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 11384974, 11385039 ], "year": 1979, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/444/0907-01", "/us/444/0907-02" ] }, { "cite": "392 U.S. 1", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6167798 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1968, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "21" }, { "page": "906" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/392/0001-01" ] }, { "cite": "252 S.E.2d 776", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "779" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "296 N.C. 703", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8570136 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "706" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/296/0703-01" ] }, { "cite": "498 S.E.2d 599", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1998, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "600" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "348 N.C. 272", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 1659880 ], "year": 1998, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "275" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/348/0272-01" ] }, { "cite": "527 S.E.2d 921", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 4, "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "923" }, { "page": "924" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "351 N.C. 627", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 1155623 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "632-33" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/351/0627-01" ] }, { "cite": "164 L. Ed. 2d 523", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 2006, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "547 U.S. 1073", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "year": 2006, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "359 N.C. 644", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 3801139 ], "year": 2005, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/359/0644-01" ] }, { "cite": "499 U.S. 621", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 11320254 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1991, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/499/0621-01" ] }, { "cite": "501 U.S. 429", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 1108039 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1991, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "434" }, { "page": "398" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/501/0429-01" ] }, { "cite": "65 L. Ed. 2d 1138", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 1980, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "448 U.S. 908", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 1787594, 1787651, 1787652 ], "year": 1980, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/448/0908-01", "/us/448/0908-02", "/us/448/0908-03" ] }, { "cite": "446 U.S. 544", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6185389 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1980, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/446/0544-01" ] }, { "cite": "534 U.S. 266", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 9108176 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "273" }, { "page": "749" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/534/0266-01" ] }, { "cite": "155 L. Ed. 2d 1074", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 2003, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "538 U.S. 1040", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 9088356, 9088262, 9088423, 9088327, 9088298, 9088395, 9088274, 9088471, 9088313, 9088285, 9088380, 9088253, 9088343, 9088447 ], "year": 2003, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/538/1040-09", "/us/538/1040-02", "/us/538/1040-12", "/us/538/1040-07", "/us/538/1040-05", "/us/538/1040-11", "/us/538/1040-03", "/us/538/1040-14", "/us/538/1040-06", "/us/538/1040-04", "/us/538/1040-10", "/us/538/1040-01", "/us/538/1040-08", "/us/538/1040-13" ] }, { "cite": "291 S.E.2d 618", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1982, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "619" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "306 N.C. 132", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8567694 ], "year": 1982, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "134" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/306/0132-01" ] }, { "cite": "572 S.E.2d 108", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "125", "parenthetical": "quoting State v. Cooke, 306 N.C. 132, 134, 291 S.E.2d 618, 619 (1982)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "356 N.C. 316", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 1511176 ], "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "340", "parenthetical": "quoting State v. Cooke, 306 N.C. 132, 134, 291 S.E.2d 618, 619 (1982)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/356/0316-01" ] }, { "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 20-138.1", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.", "opinion_index": 0 } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 719, "char_count": 15154, "ocr_confidence": 0.746, "pagerank": { "raw": 6.770845263994211e-08, "percentile": 0.41279414359678884 }, "sha256": "ab1c3282cf219431d966e19a7184cede2c114e859bf116e8e47aed9713d294e4", "simhash": "1:8b4286647053dc95", "word_count": 2411 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:31:40.090074+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges McGEE and SMITH concur." ], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. SHANNON DENISE HAISLIP" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "STEPHENS, Judge.\nOn 3 February 2005, Defendant was issued a citation for driving while impaired in violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 20-138.1. After being found guilty of that offense in district court on 13 February 2006, Defendant appealed her conviction to the superior court pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 7A-271(b). On 28 February 2006, Defendant filed a motion to suppress the evidence used to convict her. At a hearing on the motion held outside the presence of the jury during trial on 22 May 2006, Defendant argued that the evidence used to convict her was procured as the result of an unconstitutional motor vehicle checkpoint. The trial court concluded that Defendant did not have standing to challenge the checkpoint\u2019s constitutionality because she was not \u201csnared\u201d by it. Defendant was subsequently found guilty by the jury. Defendant appeals.\nThe dispositive issue before this Court is whether Defendant has standing to challenge the constitutionality of the checkpoint plan. The trial court tailored its ruling so that \u201c[this] Court can\u2019t duck this question[.]\u201d We reverse the order and judgment of the trial court and remand for findings and conclusions on the checkpoint\u2019s constitutionality.\nFACTS\nOn the evening of 2 February 2006, a weeknight, patrol officers Lascallette (\u201cLascallette\u201d) and Webb (\u201cWebb\u201d) of the Greenville Police Department \u201cdiscussed the possibility\u201d of setting up a \u201cdriver\u2019s license checkpoint\u201d later that night. Although Lascallette testified that Webb received authority from Lieutenant Phipps (\u201cPhipps\u201d), their supervisor, to conduct a checkpoint, Phipps testified that he could not recall giving authorization for the checkpoint.\nLascallette and Webb decided to meet at a location on Firetower Road in Greenville around 2:30 a.m. because they \u201cdon\u2019t get many calls at that time[.]\u201d Lascallette testified that the officers had conducted previous checkpoints at the Firetower Road location and that he \u201cdidn\u2019t think it was a very effective spot, but it served the purpose \u2014 it kept us gainfully employed.\u201d Although Lascallette labeled the checkpoint a \u201cdriver\u2019s license checkpoint,\u201d he acknowledged that the purpose of the checkpoint was to look for \u201c[a]ny violation of [Chapter 20]\u201d of North Carolina\u2019s General Statutes, which governs motor vehicle offenses in this state. Lascallette further testified that it was within the officers\u2019 discretion to determine the methodology by which the checkpoint was conducted at the scene. Though neither Lascallette nor Phipps could testify as to how, in fact, the Firetower Road checkpoint was conducted, both offered testimony as to how such checkpoints were usually conducted.\nLascallette and Webb met on Firetower Road that night as planned. They were joined by patrol officer Oxendine (\u201cOxendine\u201d). Lascallette acknowledged that since all three officers were patrol officers, no particular person was \u201cin charge\u201d of the checkpoint. Where they met, Firetower is a three-lane road with an eastbound lane, a westbound lane, and a center turn lane. Webb and Oxendine positioned their patrol cars back to back in the center turn lane, activated their patrol cars\u2019 blue lights and headlamps, and placed flares on the road in front of their cars. No signs were erected to indicate that a checkpoint was in progress. Lascallette estimated that a vehicle approaching from the east could see the patrol cars from three-quarters of a mile away. Lascallette decided to position his car as a \u201cchase vehicle\u201d that would conduct \u201cinvestigatory stop[s]\u201d of \u201canyone who turned around on [Webb and Oxendine] [.]\u201d Lascallette testified that the use of a chase vehicle was standard operating, procedure. Accordingly, Lascallette parked his car facing north toward Firetower on Dudley\u2019s Grant Drive, a road intersecting Firetower four to five hundred yards to the east and with a clear view of the checkpoint\u2019s roadblock.\nWithin minutes of positioning himself on Dudley\u2019s Grant, Lascallette observed Defendant\u2019s car heading west on Firetower approaching the roadblock. As Defendant approached Dudley\u2019s Grant, she \u201cslowed abruptly,\u201d and, without signaling, turned south onto Dudley\u2019s Grant from the westbound lane of traffic \u201ccrossing the turn lane.\u201d Lascallette, \u201cfell in behind\u201d Defendant and activated his blue lights. Defendant parked in front of the second or third apartment building on the left side of Dudley\u2019s Grant, exited the vehicle, and walked toward one of the apartments. Lascallette parked his car with his blue lights flashing, approached Defendant, and said \u201cexcuse me.\u201d Defendant then stopped walking toward the apartment and turned toward Lascallette. Lascallette testified that Defendant\u2019s driving and her exit from the car were not \u201call [that] out of the ordinary[,]\u201d and that he had stopped her because \u201cshe was avoiding a checkpoint.\u201d Noticing that Defendant was wearing pajamas and smelled of alcohol, Lascallette asked Defendant if she had been drinking. Defendant admitted that she had been drinking, and Lascallette asked her to participate in field sobriety tests.\nDefendant immediately requested a pre-arrest test. In response, Lascallette told Defendant he \u201cwasn\u2019t sure [he] even wanted to pursue charges\u201d and \u201casked her if she wanted to take the field sobriety tests [so that he] could decide what [he] wanted to do with her[.]\u201d Defendant then submitted to the field sobriety tests. After administering the tests, Lascallette explained the pre-arrest test procedures and asked Defendant if she still wanted a pre-arrest test. Defendant answered in the affirmative and was voluntarily transported by Lascallette to the Pitt County Detention Center. An Intoxilyzer 5000\u2019s analysis of Defendant\u2019s breath revealed that Defendant had a blood alcohol concentration of twelve one-hundredths grams of alcohol per 210 liters of breath (.12). Thereafter, Lascallette issued Defendant a citation for driving while impaired.\nANALYSIS\nDefendant first argues that the trial court erred in concluding that she does not have standing to challenge the checkpoint\u2019s constitutionality. We agree.\n\u201cOur review of a denial of a motion to suppress by the trial court is \u2018limited to determining whether the trial judge\u2019s underlying findings of fact are supported by competent evidence, in which event they are conclusively binding on appeal, and whether those factual findings in turn support the judge\u2019s ultimate conclusions of law.\u2019 \u201d State v. Barden, 356 N.C. 316, 340, 572 S.E.2d 108, 125 (2002) (quoting State v. Cooke, 306 N.C. 132, 134, 291 S.E.2d 618, 619 (1982)), cert. denied, 538 U.S. 1040, 155 L. Ed. 2d 1074 (2003). According to the trial transcript, Judge Griffin made findings of fact and conclusions of law in a written order denying Defendant\u2019s motion to suppress. No such order appears in the record on appeal. Thus, our review is limited to whether Judge Griffin\u2019s finding of fact, announced from the bench, that Defendant was not stopped by the checkpoint is supported by competent evidence and, if so, whether that finding supports his conclusion of law that Defendant does not have standing to challenge the checkpoint\u2019s constitutionality.\nWe first address the State\u2019s contention that Defendant was \u201cnever \u2018stopped.\u2019 \u201d (Emphasis added.) The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution \u201cprohibits \u2018unreasonable searches and seizures\u2019 by the Government, and its protections extend to brief investigatory stops of persons or vehicles that fall short of traditional arrest.\u201d United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266, 273, 151 L. Ed. 2d 740, 749 (2002). Accordingly, in order to prevail on a motion to suppress, a defendant must first establish that she was \u201cstopped\u201d within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. See United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544, 64 L. Ed. 2d 497, reh\u2019g denied, 448 U.S. 908, 65 L. Ed. 2d 1138 (1980). A stop does not occur \u201csimply because a police officer approaches an individual and asks a few questions.\u201d Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429, 434, 115 L. Ed. 2d 389, 398 (1991). A stop occurs when, given the totality of the circumstances, a reasonable person would not feel free to leave. Mendenhall, supra; California v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621, 113 L. Ed. 2d 690 (1991); State v. Campbell, 359 N.C. 644, 617 S.E.2d 1 (2005), cert. denied, 547 U.S. 1073, 164 L. Ed. 2d 523 (2006).\nIn this case, Lascallette seized Defendant within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Lascallette \u201cfell in behind\u201d Defendant\u2019s vehicle and activated his blue lights as soon as she turned down Dudley\u2019s Grant. Defendant either ignored or did not see Lascallette\u2019s vehicle behind her, parked, and exited her car. As she was walking away, Lascallette approached her and got her attention. Lascallette\u2019s blue lights were still activated when Defendant turned toward him. A reasonable person, at 2:30 in the morning, would not feel free to leave upon being approached as Defendant was by a uniformed officer whose patrol car\u2019s blue lights were activated behind him. Defendant submitted to Lascallette\u2019s show of authority. We thus conclude that Defendant was seized within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment when she stopped walking toward the apartment in response to Lascallette\u2019s presence and request.\nWe next address Defendant\u2019s standing to challenge the constitutionality of the stop. In State v. Foreman, 351 N.C. 627, 527 S.E.2d 921 (2000), our Supreme Court reaffirmed the long-standing rule that \u201c \u2018[w]hen an officer observes conduct which leads him reasonably to believe that criminal conduct may be afoot, he may stop the suspicious person to make reasonable inquiries.\u2019 \u201d Id. at 630, 527 S.E.2d at 923 (quoting State v. Pearson, 348 N.C. 272, 275, 498 S.E.2d 599, 600 (1998)). \u201c \u2018[T]he police officer must be able to point to specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant [the] intrusion.\u2019 \u201d State v. Thompson, 296 N.C. 703, 706, 252 S.E.2d 776, 779 (quoting Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 21, 20 L. Ed. 2d 889, 906 (1968)), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 907, 62 L. Ed. 2d 143 (1979)). Where police officers conduct motor vehicle checkpoints,\nit is reasonable and permissible for an officer to monitor a checkpoint\u2019s entrance for vehicles whose drivers may be attempting to avoid the checkpoint, and it necessarily follows that an officer, in light of and pursuant to the totality of the circumstances or the checkpoint plan, may pursue and stop a vehicle which has turned away from a checkpoint within its perimeters for reasonable inquiry to determine why the vehicle turned away.\nForeman, 351 N.C. at 632-33, 527 S.E.2d at 924.\nIn this case, according to his undisputed testimony, Lascallette stopped Defendant \u201cpursuant to... the checkpoint plan,\u201d not \u201cin light of and pursuant to the totality of the circumstances [.]\u201d Id. Lascallette testified that his job as the checkpoint\u2019s chase vehicle officer was to conduct \u201cinvestigatory stop[s]\u201d of \u201canyone who turned around on [Officers Webb and Oxendine]\u201d (emphasis added), and that he only stopped Defendant because \u201cshe was avoiding a checkpoint.\u201d1 Lascallette pointed to no \u201cspecific and articulable facts\u201d other than Defendant\u2019s turn down Dudley\u2019s Grant that warranted his stop. He did not stop her because she turned across the center turn lane, because of how she drove down Dudley\u2019s Grant, or because of the manner in which she exited her vehicle. He stopped her based on the systematic plan of the checkpoint. It necessarily follows, and we so hold, that when a defendant is stopped pursuant to a checkpoint plan, a defendant has standing to challenge the constitutionality of the plan by which she was \u201csnared.\u201d\nWe disagree with the State\u2019s contention that our Supreme Court held in State v. Mitchell, 358 N.C. 63, 592 S.E.2d 543 (2004), \u201cthat it is error to analyze the stop and arrest of someone eluding a checkpoint in terms of the legality of the checkpoint.\u201d The defendant in Mitchell sped up as he approached a checkpoint\u2019s roadblock and drove through the roadblock, causing a police officer to jump out of the road to avoid being hit. The officer pursued and stopped the defendant a mile and a half down the road. The Supreme Court held in the alternative that (1) the defendant was stopped pursuant to a constitutional checkpoint, and (2) the officer had reasonable, articulable suspicion to stop the defendant. Id. Our holding in this case is consistent with the Supreme Court\u2019s analysis in Mitchell.\nThe trial court\u2019s finding that Defendant was not stopped by the checkpoint is not supported by the evidence. The trial court thus erred in ruling that Defendant did not have standing to challenge the constitutionality of the checkpoint plan. Accordingly, the order denying Defendant\u2019s motion to suppress is reversed. Because the trial court did not rule on the constitutionality of the checkpoint, the judgment entered upon the jury\u2019s verdict must be reversed. The case is remanded to the trial court for appropriate findings of fact and con-elusions of law on the constitutionality of the checkpoint and for entry of an order or judgment consistent with such ruling.\nREVERSED AND REMANDED.\nJudges McGEE and SMITH concur.\n. Likewise, no such order appears in the trial court\u2019s file, according to the Pitt County Clerk of Superior Court\u2019s office.\n. We are not convinced that Defendant did, in fact, turn down Dudley\u2019s Grant to avoid the checkpoint. We note that Defendant made her left turn onto Dudley\u2019s Grant at least 400 yards before the checkpoint\u2019s roadblock. At that distance, and in the absence of posted signs indicating that a checkpoint was ahead, we question whether Defendant was avoiding the checkpoint.", "type": "majority", "author": "STEPHENS, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Special Deputy Attorney General Neil Dalton, for the State.", "The Robinson Law Firm, P.A., by Leslie S. Robinson, for Defendant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. SHANNON DENISE HAISLIP\nNo. COA06-1488\n(Filed 2 October 2007)\nConstitutional Law; Motor Vehicles\u2014 driving while impaired\u2014 standing to challenge constitutionality of checkpoint plan\nThe trial court erred in a driving while impaired case by concluding that defendant did not have standing to challenge the constitutionality of a motor vehicle checkpoint plan, and the case is remanded for findings and conclusions on the checkpoint\u2019s constitutionality, because: (1) an officer seized defendant within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment when she stopped walking toward an apartment in response to the officer\u2019s presence and request, and a reasonable person at 2:30 a.m. would not feel free to leave upon being approached by a uniformed officer whose patrol car\u2019s blue lights were activated behind him; (2) the officer testified that he stopped defendant under the systematic checkpoint plan to conduct investigatory stops of anyone who turned to avoid the checkpoint, and not in light of and pursuant to the totality of the circumstances; and (3) the trial court\u2019s finding that defendant was not stopped by the checkpoint was not supported by the evidence.\nAppeal by Defendant from judgment entered 23 May 2006 by Judge William C. Griffin, Jr., in Pitt County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 6 June 2007.\nAttorney General Roy Cooper, by Special Deputy Attorney General Neil Dalton, for the State.\nThe Robinson Law Firm, P.A., by Leslie S. Robinson, for Defendant." }, "file_name": "0275-01", "first_page_order": 305, "last_page_order": 311 }